Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Phillies trade for OF Matt Stairs Bar-right-arrows

Angels acquire Teixeira?

Getfuzzy_bucky_tiny by Squire_Boone on

I just saw on the ESPN News ticker that the Angels had acquired Mark Teixeira, but I can't find anything about it at ESPN or the MLB.com website.  Has anyone else seen this?

Either I am crazy and saw something wrong (which is possible) or this is very fresh and has yet to have an article written about it.  If I am wrong, I apologize and ask for everyone's forgiveness. 


If this is true, I think this finally pushes the Angels over the edge and makes them the odds-on favorite to win the WS.

1 recs | Comment 89 comments | Add your comment

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Its true

Teixeira For Kotchman and a Pitching Prospect

by cwhitman412 on Jul 29, 2008 6:08 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Long term deal

I am guessing that the Angels are pretty confident that they can sign Tex to a long term deal if they gave up Kotchman.

by nyy601 on Jul 29, 2008 6:29 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Possibly ... maybe

However, probably not a deciding factor. The Angels have all the makings of a World Champion this season, and just upgraded their one glaring weakness with an All-Star caliber power bat. That is worth sacrificing long-term security. Also, the Angels have plenty of depth at the position. If this move signals anything in the long term, it could be the organization’s faith in Mark Trumbo.

by StickRat on Jul 29, 2008 6:55 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

+1

Worst case scenario, the Angels can let Tex walk and use the draft pick to essentially replace Marek.

Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball

by Yakker on Jul 29, 2008 6:59 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

That's it?

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2008 6:40 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

The key is a major league ready player

Kotchman, for his sins and attributes, is going to be around for a while. The braves knew what they were getting with these deal, I like it for them.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jul 29, 2008 7:00 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Deal

Seems like a good deal for both sides. Tex will help the Angels contend this year, and the Braves get a cost-controlled, defensively-strong 1B for the next few years, plus a good bullpen piece for the future.

Formerly Uncle Charlie of Minor League Ball

by Yakker on Jul 29, 2008 6:58 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

What about Kendry?

If the Angels do not resign Teixiera, does anyone think that Kendry will get a shot at first? He has been raking again in AAA and surely deserves a shot.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jul 29, 2008 7:12 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Morales

Career .335/.391/.545 hitter in the minors. I’ve never understood why the Angels don’t at least give him a solid shot at DH.

by DrunkIrish on Jul 29, 2008 11:35 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Every hitter in the Angels system has career numbers like that

The parks they play in are ridiculous.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 30, 2008 2:09 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Bad deal for LA

Way too much to give up for a marginal upgrade during one playoffs.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 29, 2008 7:13 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Disagree

I couldn’t disagree with you more. First of all it’s not a marginal upgrade. The Angels are 9th in the league when it comes to runs scored. Not to mention their OBP (11th) and SLG (10th) is down near the bottom as well. A guy like Teixeira is exactly what they are looking for. I mean unless you think Maicer Izturis in the 3 hole is a good idea.

As for the price? How is Kotchman and a easily replaced minor league reliever too much? My first thought on hearing this trade was wow, couldn’t the Braves have gotten a little more.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jul 29, 2008 7:54 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

It is a marginal upgrade

Teixeira was calculated over at fangraphs as being all of a 9 run upgrade during the regular season, and just going by his advantage in OPS over Kotchman he might be worth 1 run during a playoff series.

Seriously. You traded 4 (3?) more seasons of Casey Kotchman so that you could start game one of your first-round series up 1-0. Wow, is that silly.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 30, 2008 2:08 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Relying on stats too much

Because that is a downright load of garbage. Think before you just accept what some sabermetrics tell you. Anyone who tells me that they think Teixeira will only improve a team by 9 runs over what Kotchman has done is smoking some seriously strong grass. For all that these more advanced stats have brought, this is one of their many drawbacks. People don’t think anymore and just throw out these absurd calculations and try and wave them in your face as proof of anything.

by was385 on Jul 30, 2008 4:38 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

So, your argument is "stats are absurd"

with absolutely no evidence to back it.

Of any kind.

No, believe it or not that doesn’t actually tend to convince people that you’re right.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 30, 2008 2:20 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

OK

He’s got a significantly higher OBP and SLG so far this year. If you’re saying that a player with a .100+ OPS advantage is only worth nine more runs over the entire course of a season than, then you really need to learn how to question things you read. Too many people now just accept these stats without even stopping to think. If you did that you’d see how ridiculous this is. A player who is going to hit for about the same average, have a much better OBP, hit about the same amount of doubles, and hit about twice as many homers is really only worth 9 more runs over an entire season? Really? Think about these things before just accepting what you read as the absolute truth.

by was385 on Jul 30, 2008 6:31 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I did think about them

In fact, I did the math myself.

And it’s correct.

Why don’t YOU try doing the math, instead of assuming that I can’t possibly be right and then refusing to do any further work?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 1:28 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'm not talking about doing the math

I’m saying that accepting any stat that you see as the absolute truth, that is what is ridiculous. To tell me that a guy with well over a 100 OPS advantage that gets on base much more and hits for far better power is worth only nine more runs over the course of the season is absolute garbage. When I say think, I mean actually think for yourself. I’m not talking about checking to see if someone else’s math done with some ludicrous stat is right or plugging in numbers, I’m saying actually step back and ask yourself, over a 162-game season, is that big of a difference in performance only worth 9 runs? If so then guys like Pujols and A-Rod are seriously f’ing overrated! But they’re not, because some of these stats, like what is telling you that Kotchman and Teixeira are not that far apart, are a load of crap.

by was385 on Jul 31, 2008 3:42 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Here

let’s just assume for a second that those two had the exact same AVG, OBP, and doubles. Assuming all those things, Teixeira is still going to have over nine more homers than Kotchman in the course of a full season. That right there is nine runs without even taking into account the fact that Teixeira is getting on base at a far higher rate. So, what exactly am I missing here? What stat did you read that actually takes away from Teixeira’s value?

by was385 on Jul 31, 2008 3:46 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

9 runs over 2 months is 27 runs over a full season

Which you would realize if you thought about this for even a third of a second (or read the rest of the thread, for that matter) before spewing some rant about statistics which doesn’t even apply here.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 1:52 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

These are your exact words

“Teixeira was calculated over at fangraphs as being all of a 9 run upgrade during the regular season”

You said 9 runs during the regular season. Not 9 runs over the rest of the regular season. If that is what you meant, then so be it but don’t tell me I’m not thinking when you mis-typed and said something different than what you are now telling me.

by was385 on Jul 31, 2008 6:27 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Instead of trying to pick through my words,

you could have either a. done the math yourself, or b. read the fangraphs article, or for that matter c. read the BTBS article linked below, any of which would have instantly clarified the situation.

Instead, you chose to hurl an anti-stats screed at me because something I wrote was slightly unclear. Unpleasant, but at least I now know that I can safely ignore your posts as statistically inept.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 10:18 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'm Still Not Getting It

I have to agree with Was385’s post. You don’t actually think that Teixeira is worth only 1 run total during a series do you? Could you? Something is silly alright.

If we were talking about the rumored trade of Kevin Youkilis and Craig Hansen for Teixeira I’d probably be agreeing with you. I’d say there was not much difference really. But we are talking about Casey Kotchman here.

Every stat I look at tells me a different story. Like Kotchman’s line at home .291 .328 .401 .729 with 2 home runs this year? Teixeira is a definite upgrade there come playoff time. Not just position wise but where he’s going to be hitting in the lineup. That’s the point of this trade.

Just take a look at Runs created, Teixeira is 4th in the league for 1B and Kotchman is 19th and when you look at RC27 the difference is slightly more than 2 runs. Sorry, but that is not marginal.

As for defense? Kotchman is a plus defender, but so is Teixeira so that’s a wash.

When you consider how much trouble the Angels have had scoring runs in general and in the post season in particular this trade makes perfect sense to me. I’m having a hard time figuring out why you think it’s such a bad move. Unless you are thinking that there is a decent chance the Angels resign Teixeira and he’s going to be killing your A’s for the next 5 years.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jul 30, 2008 12:09 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

RC27 has 2 runs per 27 outs

OK.

How many outs do you think a player makes in a 5-game postseason series? Say… half that many?

Which would result in a difference of half that many runs? Say… 1?

This stuff isn’t rocket science, people.

As for them re-signing him, I’d be more than OK with that. Boras will extract a huge ransom and they won’t get any draft picks. The Angels are going to be signing some big free agents in years to come—if it happens to be Teixeira, I can live with that.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 30, 2008 2:24 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Subject

The RC27 stat isn’t intended to work that way. That also wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I was simply trying to point out to you how large the disparity between the two players is.

I guess a much simpler way would have been to link to their respective OPS+ 139 for Teixeira and 105 for Kotchman. Of course that probably wouldn’t have convinced you either.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jul 30, 2008 7:54 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The f**k?

Of course the RC27 is intended to work that way. That’s what it means. Runs Created per 27 Outs.

Or you could read this, in which Dave Cameron calculates that Teixeira is worth .2 runs per game, or… surprise surprise… 1 run in a 5-game series.

1 run every 5 games is a 32-run upgrade for a full season, which quite honestly is a. a lot, b. more than I expected and c. I think a little generous to Teixeira, if anything.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 1:33 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Your argument is counterintuitive

which may not be wrong, but it is at least slightly difficult to understand.

Here’s why: you note that Teixeira is significantly better than Kotchman, yet in any single playoff series may not have that much of an impact. The problem with this argument is that if you were trying strictly to get better for a single 5 game series, well, then theoretically anybody could have a better 5 days than anybody else. I don’t think dividing Teixeira’s 32 run upgrade into 1 run per 5 games is useful, because it implies that he adds 1 run every single 5 games which isn’t true. Certainly there are 5 day periods in which he is equally or less valuable than Kotchman and 5 day periods where he is much much more valuable than Kotchman and brings in 5 or 6 or 10 more runs than he does. For the Angels to predict whether during these particular playoff serieses Teixeira will be unusually productive or not is impossible; they did the only reasonable thing which was get a guy who you yourself admit is significantly better than Kotchman, and are hoping for the best. It could not work, but it seems like a decent bet, especially when they’re giving up a guy who’s only a marginally above average hitter and a 1B

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Jul 31, 2008 12:17 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

This doesn't matter

Assuming both players’ performance is basically normally distributed (usually average, sometimes very good, sometimes very bad), and I certainly haven’t seen anything to convince me that such is not the case, the average production is all that matters. Teixeira is only slightly more likely to have a good series than Kotchman, and the average amount by which he is better is one run.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 1:55 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Hmmm?

Whose performance is normally distributed? We’re dealing with people, not computers. Also, we happen to know that Teixeira specifically is not that way, because his production almost always dramatically improves in the second half of the year. I’m not denying your point about the average amount – it’s a valid one – but I’m not entirely convinced of what precisely that means

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Jul 31, 2008 3:10 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Basically, he might be a little more valuable in the playoffs if he was an extreme streak hitter

I.E. someone who hits .500 every other week and .167 the rest of the time. You might be able to finagle his playing time in such a way that he could carry you while he was hot and minimize the damage while he was cold, and he might give you a Stephen Curry-esque shot at an upset in a series where you would otherwise be the underdog.

Thing is, I don’t think there actually are any hitters like that. Most of the time, Mark Teixeira hits like “Mark Teixeira”, i.e. around .320/.400/.480.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 9:46 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I Still Disagree

Boy oh boy do I disagree with you. For so many different reasons I can’t even begin to figure out how to express them all. But I guess I’ll try anyway.

Lets start with the projections that arrive at the number .2 runs? I’m not really sure how to attack that one. I guess I could point out that so far the Angels have scored 489 runs through 107 games, for an average of 4.571 runs per game. Which by the way currently makes their Pythagorean W-L: 59-48.

Now that number seems like it’s much lower than all the projections that people are using to support their conclusions that Teixera isn’t worth the upgrade. That’s actually what one of the worst lineup projection comes out to be if you use the tool the guy links to.

So what should we do? Go with the actual real world number or go with the projection that suits our argument? The one that says they should be scoring 4.7 or 4.8 runs a game?

Since I want to play both sides I will go with the real world number of 4.571 and then I’ll use the projection with Teixera in the lineup that projects the Angels score 5.107 runs per game and TA DA!!!! I arrive at a gain of 0.536 runs. So Teixera is worth at least 2.5 runs in a short series. Wow that was easy. Hey projections are fun aren’t they?

As for the link you provided it reads quite similar to the article I read on BeyondTheBoxScore. In the sense they both come to almost the same conclusion. The trade was a mistake, not large enough upgrade, 3 years of Kotchman is actually worth something.

But one of the comments on there points out something that not many people are considering, and that is while the Angels have pretty much a playoff spot clinched they are still playing for best record and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. That is a very important consideration.

So please add that to your calculations and see what you come up with. Of course home field means nothing in a short series, right? (I disagree with that too, but that’s a different argument) Sample size and all? Well in a short series what would you rather have? 25 at-bats of Teixera or 25 at-bats of Kotchman? Considering this is the playoffs? Win or go home? I think that answer is obvious to anyone.

Lastly, the definition of RC27: A stat created by Bill James to measure how many runs a lineup of 9 of the same individual would score in a game.

So no it’s not intended to work the way you are using it. Because it’s a projection based on the same player. An entire lineup. Of the same guy. You can’t just halve it twice and say hey look it supports what I already said so it must be true. It’s 100% projection.

If I had more time I would also point out that Kotchman seems to be regressing from where he was last year.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jul 31, 2008 12:39 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

You fail statistics

I’m sorry. You will be repeating the class next semester.

Did it actually never occur to you that the reason the Angels have scored less runs than they are projected to score going forward might have something to do with either a. players underplaying their projections, or b. injuries?

I’ve now looked at this trade from about 4 different angles. Every time I come up with the same upgrade—1 run. It’s a 1 run upgrade, dude. Home field? In the extremely unlikely event that the 1 regular season win Teixeira adds gives them home field in a series, that’s worth another half a run. This stuff is trivial. Surely not worth 3 more years of Kotchman to obtain.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 2:02 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Playoffs

Paul, I think the issue here is that the run discrepancy between Kotchman and Teixeira is intuitively wrong. To argue that there’s “only” a 1 win (ok, a little less) difference over the remainder of the season sounds a bit… well, it sounds a bit off. You cannot view this only through the lens of a player’s production, based on his “average” performance, in a vacuum. Moreover, I think we have all seen what a “game changing” bat can do down the stretch, particularly in a contract year. While I think it’s safe to guess you’re not a very big believer in lineup protection based on your previous posts (and I don’t mean this in anything other than a factual way), I think you’re playing down the difference here. Teixeira will create more runs not just based on his own production, but by altering the production of Vlad Guerrero in a positive fashion by getting him more pitches to hit.

I think it also merits mention that a home run or two in a playoff series will make much more than a 1 run difference. I know this sounds like rubbish, but what if those are “clutch” homers? They’ll effect bullpen usage. I’ve no problem with sabermetrics at all, but I do think that they are far from perfect and should be viewed as such.

by GuyinNY on Jul 31, 2008 4:59 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I know it's "intuitively wrong"

That’s because most people don’t “intuit” that the difference between the best and worst teams in baseball is usually only about 30 games a season in true-talent terms. From that point of view, a 3 win player upgrade over a full season is a substantial upgrade.

There is just not that much you can do to help a team at this point in the season, and especially not in the crapshoot MLB playoffs. It’s much better to just build a good roster to begin with and let the chips fall where they may than to count on some magical midseason upgrade.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 9:52 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Exactly

It’s a substantial upgrade that many not have an impact over the course of a particular playoff series, but certainly makes them a stronger team

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Jul 31, 2008 10:18 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

*may

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Jul 31, 2008 10:19 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

In relative terms, it is substantial

In absolute terms, it’s insignificant.

Unless you’re acquiring a durable true-ace starter, it is almost impossible to make an acquisition that is significant in absolute terms at the trade deadline.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 10:21 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Round And Round

Whatever. Seriously, that’s all I have to say. Underplaying their projections? Gee, who would have thunk something like that was possible? You mean the players don’t perform to exact spreadsheet specifications? Do you even get what you are saying? Forget all that though.

Just answer one question for me. Please tell me exactly what 3 years of an arbitration eligible Casey Kotchman is worth?

You know the guy that’s OPSing .774 this year and .759 for his career. Maybe I’m overvaluing the contribution that Teixera will make, but you are definitely overvaluing Kotchman as well.

The Angels traded for the biggest bat on the market and all they gave up was an average at best 1B and a minor league reliever. That sounds like a good deal to me before you even consider they might end up with two picks if he walks.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jul 31, 2008 7:03 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I know this is a trick question, but I'll ignore the inevitable ignorant response

because I’m actually somewhat curious about this.

Almost every projection system had him at around an .800 OPS, maybe a little below, entering this season. He’s underplayed that a touch but he’s also entering his prime years, so we’ll call that a reasonable estimation. That’s about league average hitting from a first baseman. Couple that with his plus glove, and he’s probably about 1 win above average or 3 wins above replacement per year. Over 3 years that’s 9 wins above replacement. Throw in one more WAR for this year.

Teixeira is about 1 win above average for the rest of the year, which is about 1.67 wins above replacement.

Stephen Marek is an unknown, but lets say he provides a couple of WAR in his career as a middle reliever. Let’s call it 1.67 because that’s not overly generous and makes the math really easy.

Teixeira will almost certainly generate two draft picks, but Marek and Kotchman could generate up to four. Let’s say the difference between the two is one second-round pick. They don’t do that much in MLB on average—let’s say 3 WAR total.

The salary difference between the two this season is about $4 million. Over the next 3 years, let’s say Kotchman averages $5 million a season in arbitration awards. That’s a salary difference of $11 million.

That means the Angels gave up 8 wins above replacement to save $11 million and get a tiny benefit in one playoffs. That is a really, really bad deal. On the free agent market, replacing those would cost at least double that much—and the free agent market is where they’ll be turning soon, because they lack in-house solutions at the corner positions. Morales can only play one of them and he’s not, IMO, that good. I think ultimately this deal will cause the Angels to lose $13-15 million in franchise value.

Please note that a lot of the assumptions I’ve used are pretty favorable to the Angels. I actually think Marek is more valuable than a second-round pick, not less so.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 10:09 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Slight math error

That should be 7 WAR lost, not 8. That makes the franchise loss more like $10-12 million.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Jul 31, 2008 10:11 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Subject

Thanks for answering my question. Prefaced with an insult. I know everything I need to know about you now.

Same guy, new name.

by stillredsoxfan on Jul 31, 2008 11:30 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Well

Kotchman’s been around a while, yet he has not done much. He’s hit to a tune of .287/.327/.448, and that’s also about his career average. Tex is a much much much better hitter, and just as good of a fielder. Marek is worthless, IMO. Braves go totally fleeced.

Yes, I believe in sabermetrics, but honestly over an entire regular season, Tex’s home runs alone gives him at least a 9 run advantage. And his OBP? That also works Tex’s way.

by METSMETSMETS on Jul 30, 2008 8:24 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

glad Teixera is gone

The guy never could hit in the clutch. I said last year that I hated the trade of him to Atlanta. Now he had an interview after the trade and pretty much blew off the Braves and wants to get the huge 20 million a year contract. I hope Tex has fun getting booed in NY next year with his unclutch AB’s and slow first halfs.

by Bravesin07 on Jul 29, 2008 7:18 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Untrue

In his career he is a .297 hitter with runners on, .322 hitter with RISP, .292 hitter with RISP and 2 out, and .347 with the bases loaded. What do all these stats have in common? They are all HIGHER then his .286 career average.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Jul 29, 2008 7:31 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Huh?

“I hope Tex has fun getting booed in NY next year with his unclutch AB’s and slow first halfs.”

Isn’t that kind of a contraction? If he only has “unclutch ABs” then shouldn’t he be stronger in the first half rather than in the second?

Over the last 3 years (I couldn’t find career stats for this), he’s had a .982 OPS for the period after the All Star Break, rather than a .887 before. In July, he has a .839 OPS. In August, a 1.017. In September/October? 1162. That’s kind of strange for somebody as “unclutch” as you say

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2008 7:52 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

clutch

as a Braves fan, I can honestly say Tex dosent seem to come through with many “big ” hits..obviously not telling you guys any scientific…we all know he is a second half player

we DONT know how clutch he will be in the playoffs..because he hasnt played in the playoffs.

by jsmall404 on Jul 29, 2008 11:13 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'll help you out...

..though I’d hardly call it “scientific…lol

With the game “Close and Late” this season Tex has done this….

53 AB’s – 19 Hits – 12 BB’s – 4 Hrs – 14 RBI

That’s .358/.485/ .679

He’s walked a lot more than in the past beause there aren’t any other really good hitters in Atlanta’s lineup besides mccann right?

Anyways, don’t debate Bravesin07 on this one. It isn’t based on any logic or truth. It’s what is known as …bitterness. i can understand that but fabricating shit about a player isn’t among my favorite behaviors.

Braves…you are full of it on this one.

by casejud on Jul 31, 2008 2:03 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Response

Yeah, he really made sure to get a lot of shots in at the Braves in between his stream of praise for the organization, its players, its management, and the fanbase.

I don’t have much doubt that Mark Teixeira is a total mercenary, but he handled this situation with a lot of class IMO.

by mrkupe on Jul 29, 2008 8:13 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Why?

Why is he a mercenary?? I’ve can’t figure out why Tex is supposed to be so fiercely loyal to Atlanta…why? Because he got traded there? Show him the money and he stays…don’t and he doesn’t. I doubt they even negotiated with him. The Braves made a decision that they couldn’t sign him and moved on.

by casejud on Jul 31, 2008 2:06 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Response

I didn’t say he was supposed to be loyal to Atlanta . . .rather, I don’t think the guy has any loyalty whatsoever to anybody other than the team that’s going to be paying him his money, and preferably as much money as possible.

It’s been said on numerous occasions that the Braves made a very substantial offer to Teixeira, which was declined. I’m sure Teixeira would have been willing to sign with the Braves and skip free agency – on the condition that they sign him to a contract on his terms rather than theirs. They were going to have to pay him a significant premium to stay off the market, and considering the Braves probably started in the area of $16-17M per year . . .well, that’s a massive amount of money.

He worked with his agent to avoid being drafted by Tampa Bay, even throwing out the word that he would flat out not sign with the team. He was so blatant about his complete and utter lack of interest in staying with the Rangers (the team that DID give him his money in the first place) that they moved him a year and a half before free agency. He has completely rebuffed any attempt by his teams to sign him to a contract that would avoid free agency, save a couple of situations in which he allowed that he would be willing to accept an absolutely obscene sum of money – and no less.

He’s a hell of a player, but it’s pretty obvious that he is all business, all the time.

by mrkupe on Jul 31, 2008 2:46 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Fair enough

You’ve made your case. He’s followed the A-Rod/ Boras school of baseball business. At least he is a consistent producer like A-Rod as well. Pretty astute move to not want to play in TB at that point as well…who would have? They were a mess at that point and with no hope in sight really. Boras is really great at his job…. making players aware of every inch of the power they have.

by casejud on Jul 31, 2008 1:13 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Final Tally for the Braves

Braves receive Kotchman and Stephen Marek for Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz, J-Salt and Matt Harrison. Great move Frank Wren!

Mike Newman
baseballhandyman.blogspot.com

by Baseball Handyman on Jul 29, 2008 7:53 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Response

In fairness, they also got 1.5 years worth of great performance from Teixeira. While it didn’t end up producing the results in the win-loss column that the Braves had hoped for, Teixeira himself did exactly what the Braves could have expected and perhaps then some.

Also, I think it bears saying that none of those players that the Braves traded have done anything useful at the major league level thus far. I have never been a believer in Harrison and Salty is fading fast for me. The real meat of the Teixeira trade rests in a 19 year old shortstop whose current .700 OPS campaign would stand as his most productive season thus far in his pro career and a 19 year old pitcher – and we all know how things go when it comes to young pitchers.

Don’t get me wrong, Neftali Feliz and Elvis Andrus are damn good prospects. But it’s entirely possible and, dare I say, very likely that the 1.5 years of Teixeira + what the Braves will get out of Kotchman are going to be significantly more productive than the Rangers’ haul. Feel free to argue on the basis that the Braves could have found a better use for their resources, but I can’t buy the argument that these trades were inherently “bad” for the team.

by mrkupe on Jul 29, 2008 8:02 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Response

1 year out of Teix actually…deadline 2007 to deadling 2008 and no playoff appearance. This deal was all about the Braves making the playoffs. Since that didn’t happen the whole thing was an endeavor which will end up as a net loss that could set back their organization years.

Feliz is quickly becoming an elite talent.
Andrus projects as a Renteria-type although I’m not sold on him yet.
Harrison has already seen time with Texas and profiles as a number 3.
J-Salt profiles as a 25 HR C or 1b. Obviously not ending up a C would hurt his value.

The only way that deal works is if the Braves had paid up and signed Teix long term. Anything less is a HUGE loss and that’s exactly what happened. Kotchman, Marek + 1 year of Teix is not nearly enough to warrant those four guys.

Mike Newman
baseballhandyman.blogspot.com

by Baseball Handyman on Jul 29, 2008 9:05 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

ex-Braves

I think you are viewing the ex-Braves through very rosy glasses. Here’s my take:

Feliz is quickly becoming an elite talent. (hard to argue)
Andrus projects as an Omar Vizquel type, which means very little offense pre-arbitration.
Harrison has already seen time with Texas and profiles as a number 4/5.
J-Salt has really taken a downturn since once profiling as a 25-HR catcher, now raising questions as to whether he’ll provide a + bat, or be able to stay at the position.

by BobbyMac on Jul 29, 2008 9:40 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Response

“Feliz is quickly becoming an elite talent.”

I will agree. But he’s also 19. And remember . . .he was traded for an All Star caliber player.

“Andrus projects as a Renteria-type although I’m not sold on him yet.”

Andrus has a .700 OPS. That would make for a personal best over the course of a full season. So . . .yeah. This would make him a utility guy at best in the majors . . .but he’s not doing this in the majors, he’s doing this two levels away from the majors. So I think more than a little restraint is needed here. And you said as much yourself . . .so what’s the problem?

“Harrison has already seen time with Texas and profiles as a number 3.”

I think you mean “profiles as a number 3 if the majors expand to 60 teams”